haptor 3 Typology and reconstruction Bernard Commie 1 Goneral considerations ‘The reconstruction of protolanguages is one of the most traditional ass of kntoneaLcomparative ings, ined the reconstruction of Proto lndo-Europeun i rightly considered one Ot the trumps of netsnthsentry linguist science Although typology can tac is ancy buck even frtber than stra Hineuistis, only relatively reoenly that ft has butgeoned to gin acceptance as @ flly-Redged sub-dscipine of tngusie, ‘What then, tthe postibe relaponcip between ese two su lscipins? In order to answer this gueson, hs nesesary fo hve somc understanding of what Kinds of questions Spology {tes to answer, Whi difercot linguists might pve somewhat Sitferen answers, Twi sseme tht the fling conse 2 Platatle subset of posible answers! First, tppology” i eoncemed with the question of hat consites 2 possibe human language. There are two distin but interelated ways in which one might approsch this question, The fist is empincal, te. we tey and place contains on posite human languages by exauiting tnd senealizing sere what we find in atested languages. The second is theoretical, on he bss olinited aheenatons of ated languages we cmt hypotheses sbout probable constrsnis on human languages, wich we are then fee to fs against data from che nung. Although the empincal a theoretical approaches are ofen fonts, ren some antago, eet hey aly ‘eet diferent degrecs of emphas, since any generalization We ‘ate irom the set of observed languages to human langage In feneral necessarily theoretical, dy theory desipned to be IReasured agaist the facts of languages necessary empl, _gENERAL. CONSIDERATIONS 1 language erreesent every language, wile the say oftypological generation to which no exception i nowa. Its lvaye coneivable that sich a genealation might De over: thrown by data om some se yet unsewrbed langage indeed this i precely what happened withthe generatzaton about Subjectypicaly precoding objects ia unmarked ord. ores Srtch was until te reenly widely eld to be an absolute Univeral Ta this spect, taportant to Bea ia mind that the umber of linguist properis with which we are dealing is fnmens. Given that we ave dealing with such large number of Properics, Hs not Incomcctetie iat a fow auth propertis Bight have very skewed atibutons, cvem give "te lange umber of languages fo which we have aonss. If 2 puatve ‘solute universal has principled ass, Le can be shown *0 flow om. some more. general property of language oF option, then irhas 3 beter hance of Being indeed exception. ies wat rerpect to posible aman langvages, hough Renn this doe ont geatonoe eholue rlabiiy, ‘How doer all ofthis reat to recomsricon in historia compertve inguin? The end prodec of w reconstruction 8 ‘Shatscteriation of a langusge that a hypothesized to have been Spalcen inthe pas.* Ths esonsrocted anguage can be tated {alist the sate typoloial generalizations as re applicable to attested languages Thus, ws can sok ofa parealarrevnstucted language whether is conten wit what we behve fo be Constraints on possible human langusges, and ifthe answer is negtve then we should serous teconsde the reconsrction ‘We can sho ask of @ particular reconstruction whether ts Pnwible, though bore we are on more dangerows rowed since Hmplusbe dacs not can the same ss impossible’, and there are even some instances where typologaly implausible Feconstuction might, for other reason, be fealy acetal For itance, all Iaaguages of the ‘Kbossan fami of south tester Ana have leks os pat of their regular phoneme Taventoy, alfough cihs are Giherwise virally unknown 23 Part of tie reglsr phoneme ventory of languages. Standard Procedures of reconstruction, in. partula the comparative bnethod, would lend us to postulate Ces in Proo-Khosan. and presumably mo one wold rjc! this rsoostrcton om grounds of SSpolopicl inpauslity, piven that every descendant of Proto oan har sks. ‘One limitation onthe application ofrpology, in pntiala of implications) avers, tthe csiaton of constuctons that any reconstruction is necesarypartal the evidence fs stented lngungss enables bs to bal spa paral pstre of het ancestor, bat there wil always be properties of the ancestor that ire are unable to reconsract berause evidence for them has teen fost from all descendant languages. For instance, examin non of the moder Romance languages, Would not lead ws to inclu that atin has asicase stem. Ths, & reconstruction felk of things that the protodanguage had, but doesnot ecesarly tell ws what things toot have. Tethore isan Implictonsl universal py then and we rectmsruct a Tamguape that has put lacks 9, tis could in principle be Sue 10 the attested lanplages’ having los all traces of But stl febining enougit efdence Yo reconscic p when he proto Tangxsge i fact had both p and There jean important assumption implicit in the foregoing namely tat thee hes een no change the range of potential ‘ppolopicl variation in human language since the time at which ‘Sith reconstructed languages are assed to have Been spoken fn the preseat day. Infact forthe tme-depth at wbich we work in mont rocostractions this is 2 plasible assumption. Proto Indo-European, for ssance, ‘b Usally asumed to ave been ‘poten some 4500 to 60 year before the preseol, and mont ther rconsracied proto languages involve similar or shallower time-depis. This short penod compared. with the overall Hitony ‘of human langage: the most conservative estimates ‘would date the Tetest possible time for the ong of Duman Tnnguage to around 35.0 years belor the preseat (Le. the tme ‘ofthe start of the major migrations that ease Homo spies ‘host parts ofthe word), with 100.000 Years before the present ing loser fo the consests date (2 de appearance of Homo ‘SSptce) Thus. if there are typological generaliations that ‘Suracterize langsages attested tua, they are probaly equally true of languages spoken up to 10,000 years ago any Fate, TS Sssumption il Se made i What flows ‘As an aksration of how ‘ypology can be used 10 conse reconstructions, ne may consider 2 simple example Involving 2 Confit between the comparative method a sty applied, and typological posit or paustlty. First, et us take an example Where there no confi In both European and Syrian varices ‘fF Romany, «language (or more sccuraely group of languages) Sf the Info-aryan subbrench of the Tndoteaian branch Indo-Eeropean, there are two sibilant phonemes,» and fet if Me look at correspondence ses betwcen European and Sian Romany, we tind hat there ate tres, wilt oo evidence of ‘competency distribution betwees| any pair of them. Given ths net applcstion of the comparative method requires seine6 “TvPOLOGY AND RECONSTRUCTION: up three sibilant phonemes in Prote-Romany, ab in Table 3.1 (aatla. 1085: 245-6). Now, there is-nothing. typological Iinplusible about hee stant phonemes ins singe language, Indeed the sytem hypothesized for Proto Romany s exely the ‘ime as that attested in Sanit. Actually the compazion goes further inthe ene: Sanit san ancent language ofthe Todo ‘Aryan sub-branch, and in cognates we find exact corespondence isemeen. the. reconstructed Proto-Romany” slants andthe tested siblans of Sanskt, so that here the Sonsuit data serve ts independent confimation of te correciess ofthe reconstruc tion of Proto Romany sue 34 Romany sans sopeon Romany ‘Siri Raman Prete Romany : * % i : % A citferent situation is provided by vowel correspondences in iinkchee and Korvak, two closely elated languages of the (Chukotke-Kemchatkan family ofnor-castem Siberia. Chokchee ‘Sa decay relatively homogenous language. while Korsak is Gialecally much more divided, tndeed some varieties that are Sometimes considered. dialects of Korsak are perhaps. more Sccurtely to be considered separate Tanguagess for example ‘Alutor~ Both Tanguoges ave a system of vowel hatnony ‘whereby the vowels are died ito two sets of thee such that Al'the vowels 9 given wort most Belong to one sn only one Sets in Words with fecessve vowels, these-are (1, e: in WOWdS With dominant vowels, dhe corespondents ae € 0.0; e and fre clearly distinguishable morpophonemial. In. adion, ‘ther es schva vowel a, which clearly sometimes Phoneme ‘Chulchee and posibly sometimes phonemic in Kory, although the schwa wil play n role in the following discussion. [general ‘i given vowel of Chukchee appears also i cognate Koryak items, {ee ha Some stances of ape a the prea mer ‘of such correspondences varying from dale wo dialect until one Fesches Aluor, the varety most ditiact from Chukehec, in ‘which ale correspond toa indeed where the division between the two set of vowels lowe completely so that there ate just three (nowsehwa) vowels fm, a. Let vs suppose that we take ‘Ghukchee and three difereht varieties af Koryak with dlereat (GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 5 issibtions of and ad tht we have coeespondenes asin {fale 32° Now? ste applieaon of the comparative method oul que tt setup dor Prote-Chkotko Ramehatkan te {otne! vowel phones one foreach sameapondene stim the hot mist owe ew inl ore Fypobpilly.sich'a sem te highly Inpausbi, copecally en iat the reenrton fas no eonespondingvchness of nck vone And indeed, ae fara lam aware no investigator of {Chute and Rory his been led fo post sch astm for Proto Chath Kemchatkan Rather, have sumed that We have here as of eel ifesin,wih ue shige 10 ‘oe domaip bucomee move extensive a one moves foie (Deny tou Chee Cicer Ronokh Konak? Konak In the core of this article, we will examine two ses of dat from the reconsriction of Proto-lado-European phonology. The Choice of these datasets is aot acidenal. The protodanguoge of the Indo-European family isthe one Uiat has been subjest 0 tnost intensive investigation within historeab-comparatve Lingus Shame of di ae sl or tein tetera ‘methodologeal principles: yet despite (or pesbaps Becmse the amount of work that hae been dove an Fecostructing Proto Indo-European, there oman areas of reat, cOMleoversy, i particular surounding the phonation types eg. voicing, spici- on) of Protondo-Europenn and concerning. the relation between the phonemically distinct vowel qualities andthe laryngeal consonant phoremes of Prote Indo-European. The ‘choice of phonology rather than syntax, even though much ofthe recent work in typology has been syntactic, follows ot so much from any question of principle ae from the greater ease. with which spose questions can he formulated and even, at east 10 Some evtent; answered. with respect to the tocomstraction of Proto-lndo European phonology.